SFR: Who would WFF elect?

Who would you vote for?

  • McCain/Palin

    Votes: 85 30.1%
  • Obama/Biden

    Votes: 169 59.9%
  • Nader/Gonzales

    Votes: 7 2.5%
  • Other

    Votes: 21 7.4%

  • Total voters
    282
I just thought ai would throw this out.

Brits have a way with the language!

"You have to pinch yourself - a Marxist radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshiped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it's considered impolite to say so."

- Melanie Philips, The Spectator (UK) 10/14/08
 

Flyborg

Active Member
I just thought ai would throw this out.

Brits have a way with the language!

"You have to pinch yourself - a Marxist radical who all his life has been mentored by, sat at the feet of, worshiped with, befriended, endorsed the philosophy of, funded and been in turn funded, politically promoted and supported by a nexus comprising black power anti-white racists, Jew-haters, revolutionary Marxists, unrepentant former terrorists and Chicago mobsters, is on the verge of becoming President of the United States. And apparently it's considered impolite to say so."

- Melanie Philips, The Spectator (UK) 10/14/08
Sweet, from the same chick that wrote "The False Faith of Scientific Reason". What's considered impolite is to point out that she's a strong voice of the Jewish lobby in Britain. Faaar more sensitive subject. The only people I trust less than politicians are lobbyists. It's amazing that in today's age, with so much information available to us, people will repeat even the most obvious of lies.
 
for those of you gun owners who expressed dislike with the NRA, check out the Gun owners of America. the group, to me, is a lot more respectable and much more devoted to protecting individual liberties. http://www.gunowners.org/

i've already probably beaten my dislike for both major candidates to death. i guess i'll finish it by saying that Obama scares me a lot more than McCain. i disagree with them both on just about every issue that is important to me. the difference is, Obama will have a lot more power to carry out his agenda than McCain. he will have the benefit of having the other branches of the government democrat run, as well as the fact that his followers seem to hang on to his every word as if some kind of messiah figure. people seem to fall in line with him on every issue, and seem to ignore some of the more alarming things he has said. McCain would be a lame duck president that would have as much, or more problems getting people to go along with him as our current president (not that that's stopped him on a lot of things). but they will both also inherit many of the powers signed into law by this last administration. checks and balances as we know are done, a thing of the past. a large example should be the travesty that is the economic bailout package; congressmen from every district got flooded with calls and emails asking them to vote no, some say over 90% of their constituents were against the passing of that bill. but it passed anyways, and we're left holding the bill for it.
 
Sweet, from the same chick that wrote "The False Faith of Scientific Reason". What's considered impolite is to point out that she's a strong voice of the Jewish lobby in Britain. Faaar more sensitive subject. The only people I trust less than politicians are lobbyists. It's amazing that in today's age, with so much information available to us, people will repeat even the most obvious of lies.

Or ignore even the most obvious of truths if it is in opposition to their ingrained beliefs. :beathead:
 
Fyrwood, I'm sorry, I didn't intend to put words in your mouth. Perhaps I read too much into your post that you understood that the interpretation of second amendment has long since restricted what sorts of weapons individuals may own, even if you disagree with that interpretation.

With all due respect, your opinion of what the framers of the constitution thought when writing the second amendment isn't worth any more than mine is and carries the same legal weight. In fact, whether the second amendment even permitted gun ownership outside of the constraints of "a well-regulated militia" has been subject of valid legal disagreement until the recent supreme court ruling.

As for his teaching at U Chicago, his record indicates that he taught for 12 years, including three classes per year, one of them in "due process and equal protection areas of constitutional law." The way you put it makes sound that he taught this class only once (even if he did, it would suggest a greater understanding of constitutional law than any or the other candidates or anyone on this forum). Many university professors teach the same class year after year precisely because they are the authority on that subject. His title while at the U Chicago was "Senior Lecturer," because it was not a tenured position. He has been criticized for using the title "Professor," which often has a narrower technical definition, but even the U Chicago Law School accepts that title as a valid one for Senior Lecturers (http://www.law.uchicago.edu/media/index.html).

I'm a skeptic, even a cynic, when it comes to the motivations and believability of our leadership in goverment in general, but our current president has elevated that cynicism to a new level; "utterly untrustworthy" seems an appropriate description. However, I find Obama and McCain refreshingly honest by comparison, despite the campaign rhetoric. This gives me some hope. Sadly, comments like yours about Obama tend to mitigate against hope for the future, because they betray an unwillingness or disinterest in objectivity. Hopefully, your response is one generated by the heat of the current political climate and you will give whoever is our next president the benefit of fair treatment as well as critical scrutiny.
If you take a piece of Granite and chip away at it for 230 years you will certainly have a pile of gravel.

Would you be assuaged of my objectivity were I to state my real disappointment with President Bush and a great many of the current republicans in congress?

Why is it that a Socialist/Communist cannot just speak plainly about his world view in the context of a presidential election. If it is truly the better way then the people will elect him. Why is he compelled to lie about important relationships in his past, his voting record or lack thereof, what he truly intends to do with our military? If his is the better way then why not just tell the truth and let the people decide?

And no Richard, my passion for this debate is not a consequence of the current political season. I stay pretty wound up about it all the time.

Sweet, from the same chick that wrote "The False Faith of Scientific Reason". What's considered impolite is to point out that she's a strong voice of the Jewish lobby in Britain. Faaar more sensitive subject. The only people I trust less than politicians are lobbyists. It's amazing that in today's age, with so much information available to us, people will repeat even the most obvious of lies.
Just because she said it doesn't make it untrue, or make all lobbyist evil by definition. Who would you suggest we send to influence the debate about, let us say... , fisheries reform? A Mortician from Des Moines?

I would love to be wrong about Obama, and assure you all that I will gratefully admit if I turn out to be so, will you?
 

Flyborg

Active Member
Just because she said it doesn't make it untrue, or make all lobbyist evil by definition. Who would you suggest we send to influence the debate about, let us say... , fisheries reform? A Mortician from Des Moines?
It has nothing to do with evil/good. It's an issue of trust. If we're going to trust lobbyists to provide us with facts on issues they have obvious vested interests in, we're not really interested in the truth, are we?
 

Flyborg

Active Member
Why is it that a Socialist/Communist cannot just speak plainly about his world view in the context of a presidential election. If it is truly the better way then the people will elect him. Why is he compelled to lie about important relationships in his past, his voting record or lack thereof, what he truly intends to do with our military? If his is the better way then why not just tell the truth and let the people decide?
By republican standards, all democrats are socialists. I asked my brother in law yesterday (having a similar conversation) and he couldn't tell me what socialism meant, despite spouting off about it non-stop. I explained all the ingrained aspects of socialism that already exist in our society, and he suddenly realized that socialism isn't a bad word, no matter what McCain says. Even McCain knows that without elements of socialism, America would be a piss-poor superpower.

One of the quantitative lines between democrats and republicans is "how much" laissez faire and "how much" socialism. Too much of either is a risk to what is most important--democracy. I stand on the side that sees plainly that the lack of restrictions on corporate America, private interests and lobbies have become a monstrous danger to democracy. A little socialism is a far cry from communism--the fact that you even said it is a discredit to your argument :(
 
It has nothing to do with evil/good. It's an issue of trust. If we're going to trust lobbyists to provide us with facts on issues they have obvious vested interests in, we're not really interested in the truth, are we?
So if someone has a vested interest in a matter then we can count on the truth being a casualty?

Hence, I vote for the Mortician from Des Moines to come out here and get our steelhead runs squared away.
 
By republican standards, all democrats are socialists. I asked my brother in law yesterday (having a similar conversation) and he couldn't tell me what socialism meant, despite spouting off about it non-stop. I explained all the ingrained aspects of socialism that already exist in our society, and he suddenly realized that socialism isn't a bad word, no matter what McCain says. Even McCain knows that without elements of socialism, America would be a piss-poor superpower.

One of the quantitative lines between democrats and republicans is "how much" laissez faire and "how much" socialism. Too much of either is a risk to what is most important--democracy. I stand on the side that sees plainly that the lack of restrictions on corporate America, private interests and lobbies have become a monstrous danger to democracy. A little socialism is a far cry from communism--the fact that you even said it is a discredit to your argument :(
It was my effort towards charity that caused me to use socialism, for in fact I believe our long slide into socialism has led us to the precipice of electing a Communist. The desensitization of the last half century has led us to point where where we may in fact elect a communist in the name of a "little socialism". My assertion of these facts (or theory if you so choose) has nothing to do with John McCain but a lifetime of observation. Again, I state my eager willingness to stand corrected in the course of history,and ask, do those of you who support Obama stand willing to do the same?

Alas, my original question goes unanswered. Why can't he just be truthful about his world view?
 
Fyrwood,
I think it is your misunderstanding of communism that makes you think that Obama is untruthful about his position. He espouses pretty much straight up American capitalism in virtually all of his policy positions. Embracing a graduated income tax doesn't make someone a communist, otherwise our whole congress would qualify.

The "center" of political debate in this country has been pushed so far right in the last 30 years or so that people are now using terms like 'socialist' or 'communist' in a context that would have been considered moderate or 'left of center' 40, 50, or 75 years ago.

The main reason that Bill Clinton had difficulty in his first two years of office, when he had a democratic majority in both the house and senate, was because he was so far to the right of much of the democratic party at the time. The generation that came of age in the Reagan/Bush/Clinton eras refer to Clinton as "liberal," but he would have fit very comfortably into the Republican party of the '60s, what used to be called "Rockefeller Republicans." Heck even Barry Goldwater, who seemed pretty far right then, subsequently fell out with the Republican base as it moved even farther to the right, especially on social issues.

I don't think we have anything to worry about anyone in our political system who makes their way to the top posing any threat to our capitalist economic structure; they are all so beholden to financial interests by the time they get to that point that anyone who might have such tendencies has been weeded out long before they get there. The biggest threat to capitalism, however, are the folks in our present administration who have been removing the regulations that maintain our economy on a even keel, as we've seen by the economic collapse in recent weeks. The The Republican majority in Congress for 12 of the last 14 years neglected their responsibilities for oversight. The Dems haven't done much better acting in the minority, but they can hardly bear the majority of the blame.

In my travels, I've seen unbridled communism (Cuba) and unbridled capitalism (China) and all I can say is that I'm glad we don't have anything close to either in this country. in both of those countries, such extremes are only made possible by strong totalitarian governments. I think we don't have anything to worry about as long as we jealously guard our democracy.

D
 

509

New Member
Fyrwood,

The "center" of political debate in this country has been pushed so far right in the last 30 years or so that people are now using terms like 'socialist' or 'communist' in a context that would have been considered moderate or 'left of center' 40, 50, or 75 years ago.

The main reason that Bill Clinton had difficulty in his first two years of office, when he had a democratic majority in both the house and senate, was because he was so far to the right of much of the democratic party at the time.
Were we both living in the 1990's?? Clinton's problems in the first two years was with the American people not Congress. He was very, very liberal. National health care, don't ask don't tell, etc. I can go get a complete list.

That led to the Contract with America and Republican control of Congress. It was only after the election that he moved to the right simply because he saw the handwriting on the wall. 1996 was going to be his last year in office if he did not change. He is a survivor.

I don't think we have anything to worry about anyone in our political system who makes their way to the top posing any threat to our capitalist economic structure; they are all so beholden to financial interests by the time they get to that point that anyone who might have such tendencies has been weeded out long before they get there.

Wall Street and Bill Clinton were very, very close. Obama has some of the same advisors so I suspect that change will be at the margins rather than wholesale. Clinton did handle the bailout of Mexico, the Asian contagion, and leverage crises fairly well because of his close association with Wall Street.

My concern with Obama is foreign and social policy.

In my travels, I've seen unbridled communism (Cuba) and unbridled capitalism (China) and all I can say is that I'm glad we don't have anything close to either in this country.

China is still a communist country. They still have a planned economy to a great extent complete with political oppression. The interesting part about China is that they are the first economically successful communist country. Lenin did a similar adventure with his New Economic Plan, but quickly changed course after he solidified his power.

Our bet is that people that are allowed to make their own economic decisions will eventually insist on making their own political decisions. Has worked in the past, it will be interesting to see if this works in the future.

Well, that's my opinion. Remember it is worth what you paid for it.
 
In regards to the question about why a majority of fly fishermen seem to be liberal and conventional gear anglers tend to be conservative, I'd guess it's education related. On average, those with more education tend to be liberal, and those with less are more likely to be conservative. I've read that more than once but don't recall where. If that conclusion is accurate, it correlates to my observation that fly guys seem to on average have a higher level of education than conventional gear folks. If that's the case, it's reasonable to expect that the fly fishing fraternity has more liberals than conservatives. Fortunately there's enough cross-over that neither group suffers the effects of homogenous boredom.

Sg

I have never heard this, only the opposite, that Republicans tend to be better educated.

"Yet Republicans in the general public tend to be better educated than Democrats. In the 1994-2002 General Social Surveys (GSS), Republicans have over 6/10ths of a year more education on average than Democrats. Republicans also have a higher final mean educational degree. Further, Republicans scored better than Democrats on two word tests in the GSS--a short vocabulary test and a modified analogies test.

If one breaks down the data by party affiliation and political orientation, the most highly educated group is conservative Republicans, who also score highest on the vocabulary and analogical reasoning tests. Liberal Democrats score only insignificantly lower than conservative Republicans. The least educated subgroups are moderate and conservative Democrats, who also score at the bottom (or very near the bottom) on vocabulary and analogy tests.

" From http://www.pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/archives/014093.php

See Also:
Democrats and Republicans
http://people-press.org/report/124/republicans


While I did see some articles that stated democrats were more educated none of them provided ANY evidence, they seemed to be more opinion than based on any research.